First, I don't think crop sensors are a disadvantage in terms of noise performance underwater, because if shooting THE SAME DEPTH OF FIELD on a Full Frame sensor or a m4/3 one, your noise performance will be the same. Yes, a full frame sensor will have about a 2 stop advantage in terms of ISO performance over m4/3, but that's entirely negated by the fact that you need to shoot at a narroer aperture on full frame in order to keep your corners sharp. Basically, when using a full frame camera, I almost never shoot at anything below F8 for wide-angle. Usually at F11. With the GH5, I'm usually at F4 or F5.6. Which means my ISO is 200 or so on m4/3, and 800 or so on full frame. Guess what? That gives you basically identical noise performance.

A full frame camera will still have better dynamic range and higher resolution, but whether that matters largely depends on what you intend to do with the photos. Unless you're making really large prints, I think the GH5 is perfectly adequate for stills. About half the photos in my portfolio are taken with a GH4 and the other half with a Nikon D800 and Sony A7RII. I'd be surprised if many people would be able to guess which is which.

First, I don't think crop sensors are a disadvantage in terms of noise performance underwater, because if shooting THE SAME DEPTH OF FIELD on a Full Frame sensor or a m4/3 one, your noise performance will be the same. Yes, a full frame sensor will have about a 2 stop advantage in terms of ISO performance over m4/3, but that's entirely negated by the fact that you need to shoot at a narroer aperture on full frame in order to keep your corners sharp. Basically, when using a full frame camera, I almost never shoot at anything below F8 for wide-angle. Usually at F11. With the GH5, I'm usually at F4 or F5.6. Which means my ISO is 200 or so on m4/3, and 800 or so on full frame. Guess what? That gives you basically identical noise performance.

A full frame camera will still have better dynamic range and higher resolution, but whether that matters largely depends on what you intend to do with the photos. Unless you're making really large prints, I think the GH5 is perfectly adequate for stills. About half the photos in my portfolio are taken with a GH4 and the other half with a Nikon D800 and Sony A7RII. I'd be surprised if many people would be able to guess which is which.

Dreifish is spot on you have at least two stops benefit with full frame however where you shoot f/4 in a mft fisheye with ff you are qt f/8 negating the benefit for ambient light wide angle.
The resolution however is much better with full frame and this is something that doesn’t go away if you print. On a screen unless is 4K you don’t see the benefits and in video definitely you don’t see them.
As a paradox I have seen full frame having much better performance in macro because mft have quite a bit of diffraction from f/11 onwards and at f/16 most lenses are weak and become garbled at f/22. Full frame you keep sharpness until the smallest aperture and the resolution is amazing

Dreifish is spot on you have at least two stops benefit with full frame however where you shoot f/4 in a mft fisheye with ff you are qt f/8 negating the benefit for ambient light wide angle.
The resolution however is much better with full frame and this is something that doesn’t go away if you print. On a screen unless is 4K you don’t see the benefits and in video definitely you don’t see them.
As a paradox I have seen full frame having much better performance in macro because mft have quite a bit of diffraction from f/11 onwards and at f/16 most lenses are weak and become garbled at f/22. Full frame you keep sharpness until the smallest aperture and the resolution is amazing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But why would you shoot macro at F16 or F22 on m4/3? At F11 on m4/3, you get the same depth of field and diffraction characteristics as you would at F22 full-frame. Some full-frame sensors have more megapixels to crop into, but in actuality you get greater magnification in m4/3. 1:1 macro for m4/3 works out to filling the frame with a subject that would require 1:2 reproduction ratio on full frame to fill the frame. So in terms of detail, you should be able to extract more detail from small subjects with m4/3 than full frame simply because the pixel density is greater. Diffraction scales with depth of field, so it's ultimately equivalent for the same depth of field across different formats.

The main advantage I see for macro with full-frame cameras is actually faster focusing with less hunting at macro distances. And I think that's primarily an advantage with newer generation Nikon (and perhaps Canon -- I have no personal experience) bodies. The 90mm macro on Sony A7x bodies is also quite slow to focus, like the 45mm and 60mm macro lenses on m4/3.

But why would you shoot macro at F16 or F22 on m4/3? At F11 on m4/3, you get the same depth of field and diffraction characteristics as you would at F22 full-frame. Some full-frame sensors have more megapixels to crop into, but in actuality you get greater magnification in m4/3. 1:1 macro for m4/3 works out to filling the frame with a subject that would require 1:2 reproduction ratio on full frame to fill the frame. So in terms of detail, you should be able to extract more detail from small subjects with m4/3 than full frame simply because the pixel density is greater. Diffraction scales with depth of field, so it's ultimately equivalent for the same depth of field across different formats.

The main advantage I see for macro with full-frame cameras is actually faster focusing with less hunting at macro distances. And I think that's primarily an advantage with newer generation Nikon (and perhaps Canon -- I have no personal experience) bodies. The 90mm macro on Sony A7x bodies is also quite slow to focus, like the 45mm and 60mm macro lenses on m4/3.

There are plenty of subjects that you need f/16 if you want to focus more than the eyes like pygmies, bobtail squid, shaun the sheep nudis and you can’t really work out with f/11 likewise you want more depth of field on a larger subject if you want to focus the whole fish I have plenty of examples where the same shot on the same subject looks better on a full frame but less so on ambient light wide angle

There are plenty of subjects that you need f/16 if you want to focus more than the eyes like pygmies, bobtail squid, shaun the sheep nudis and you can’t really work out with f/11 likewise you want more depth of field on a larger subject if you want to focus the whole fish I have plenty of examples where the same shot on the same subject looks better on a full frame but less so on ambient light wide angle

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if you need f/16 on m4/3 to get the entire subject in focus, then you'd need f/32 on full frame, not f16 to get the same depth of field. And the loss of resolution to diffraction would be the same (assuming the same pixel size). The shot may look better on full frame because of dynamic range, for example, but assuming the same level of magnification and the same depth of field, they should look basically identical if I understand the physics correctly.

In theory if you look at imatest etc looks like the two outcome are comparable but when you look at the same subject at those apertures it is not

In terms of dynamic range you don-t see that in macro what you see is more colours due to the sensor so maybe the combination of colours and resolution together gives a better look

For wide angle shots in ambient light not much to say for shots with strobes FF always much better colours

For me is not much the dynamic range but the color depth and resolution where FF beats MFT however for video resolution does not matter and colours are anyway 8 or 10 bits so the extra 2-3 bits you have simply are not visible

Interceptor, in the DXOLabs charts you linked, if you compare the percieved resolution with the Olympus at F11 and the Nikon at F22, they're both orange. Or compare F5.6 vs F11 for that matter. Perceived resolution looks pretty similar to me. Where are you seeing 3 vs 5mpix?

A full frame sensor does have better color discrimination, but again, that's ISO dependent--just like noise and dynamic range--as Architeuthis pointed out. So for instance, the EM1 has better color sensitivity at ISO200 (23.7 bits) than the D850 does at ISO800 (22.6 bits). Of course, if you're not limited by depth of field and can choose use ISO 200 on the D850, you'll get better color sensitivity (25.1 bits) -- about 2 stops better, as we would expect given that the sensor has 4 times the light gathering area.

In wide angle shots with strobes, you are no longer depth of field limited, so if you end up shooting both at, say, F8, ISO 200, then yes, of course the full frame sensor is going to show greater resolution, color sensitivity and dynamic range, since you're not limited by the depth of field as you would be with macro.

It is a good question, for me i am looking for a solution for the Atomos Ninja V.
Nauticam has written to me that they did not plan to make a housing to the Ninja V, so i am looking for the housing as well.

What experience do you have with the hdmi cables from Nauticam?
my last body tried 3 cables on a week and all cables made his Atomos show a black screen as soon as we got under water and the cable was moved a bit. No leakage detected though.

I have not any experience with Nauticam's housing for external recorder because I didn't buy it yet (here in Russia it may cost me around $5000 for housing itself) for a reason I described - it can not record 4K60-10bit with native cable they provide, so it does not make any sense to use it until Nauticam get fixed their 'cable issue' in the factory but not DIY.

I had a long conversations with Nauticam's guys with no luck.

Or I have to find a way to replace HDMI (A-A) cable to high speed one with an adapter, nauticam's hole is not big enough to put HDMI-A (Full size) connector through it.

For this moment I just have Atomos Ninja Inferno and GH5 and NA-GH5 housing and use GH5 without an external underwater monitor.

I have an experience to use different HDMI cables with GH5+Ninja Inferno in my studio not underwater.

So both (Atomos) cables I have are quite expensive ~$150 vs $50, and $50 cable does not support 4K60-10bit, but 4K60-8bit does.

It is a good question, for me i am looking for a solution for the Atomos Ninja V.
Nauticam has written to me that they did not plan to make a housing to the Ninja V, so i am looking for the housing as well.

Thx for you comments, lets hope Nauticam soon will make a good solution.

Hi Lionfi2s

Thx Lionfi2s, have to admit i asked them back in March 2018, if i remember correct.
And i guess they just did not have thought about it at that time?? And i read their mail like they never would make it :-)